ArticleDigital health
Cross-platform comparison of the quality, reliability, and engagement of endometriosis-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the quality, reliability, and user engagement of endometriosis-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili, identifying variations by platform, uploader type, and content category to inform digital health strategies. Methods: The top 100 videos per platform were retrieved using the Chinese keyword for "endometriosis." After excluding irrelevant or promotional content, 195 videos (99 TikTok, 96 Bilibili) were analyzed. Categorization included uploader type (professional individuals, nonprofessionals, institutions) and content (disease knowledge, treatment, Traditional Chinese Medicine, other). Quality was assessed via Global Quality Score (GQS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), JAMA benchmarks, and Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI). Engagement (likes, collections, comments, shares) and duration were recorded. Analyses used the Wilcoxon rank-sum, Kruskal-Wallis, Fisher's exact, and Spearman correlations. Results: Professionals uploaded 83.6% of videos; disease knowledge dominated (64.1%). Bilibili videos were longer (median 281.5 vs. 64.67 s; Conclusions: Videos show moderate quality, with Bilibili emphasizing reliability and TikTok virality. Professional content is superior, but the popularity-quality disconnect highlights needs for verification and education to reduce misinformation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.